The birth of the
baby and early
childhood
Before the early 2000s, development studies
were scattered in Antwerp. There were two
institutes in separate university colleges (the
Centre for Development Studies and the College
for Developing Countries), as well as some
researchers working on their own, outside of any
structure. Already in the 1980s, long before the
University of Antwerp merged into one institution,
it was clear to me that this fragmentation was
not viable, and that we were in need of a minimal
critical mass. My initial attempts at better coordination and eventual merger were met with
scepticism and even overt or covert hostility and
resistance. Many preferred the illusory comfort of
their own small niche rather than embarking on a
more ambitious and, in the longer run, inevitable
project.
It took many years, until the second half of the
1990s, to have things move slowly in the right
direction. I was attached to the College of
Developing Countries, and I found a soulmate at
the Centre for Development Studies in the person
of Stefaan Marysse. After having together set up
a centre for the study of the African Great Lakes
Region spanning both institutes, we embarked
on a crusade to convince reticent minds. With the
help of both the Flemish Minister of Education,
who promised to reward the merger financially,
and some allies higher up in the hierarchy of the
University of Antwerp that was in its formative
stage too, we eventually prevailed in 2000.
IOB started functioning effectively in early 2001,
and I became its first chair. The fact that we had
to start from scratch was an opportunity and a
challenge at the same time. We rapidly developed
a common corporate culture, got our structures,
staff policies and regulations in order, designed
the branding of our education, research and
service delivery, and soon became visible in the
European landscape of development institutes.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear to me that
development studies would no longer exist in
Antwerp had we not created IOB. As I retire at the
beginning of 2016, I’m very happy and confident to
leave this youngster in able hands.
Filip Reyntjens
The anniversary of IOB is a good occasion to
ponder on how the institute has evolved over the
years, why it took some turns and not others,
where it may be heading in the future, and,
more importantly, where it should be heading. I
guess this is why those who have witnessed the
history of IOB from the first row, and were actors
in shaping it, were asked to contribute. Not to
suggest how IOB should evolve in the future, for
this is a task the able new generation at IOB is
well equipped to address. But I am happy to draw
attention to some issues that preoccupied my
generation and that, I think, will not go away.
First, an institute like IOB by definition draws on
several (social science) disciplines. But how to
balance them without losing focus and scientific
edge, in particular in terms of staff composition,
teaching programmes and research agendas?
And how far to go towards mixing these different
perspectives: are we juxtaposing or are we
trying to fuse disciplines? In my time this led to
fascinating discussions. I guess we never managed
to settle the debate, but our deliberations were
helpful in shaping strategic decisions.
Second, the very name of IOB suggests that it
must be policy oriented. But how to square this
with academic excellence and independence?
What, for instance, is the role of consulting
financed by development agencies? Again this
is something that we kept scratching our heads
about, without finding the magic formula.
And third, much of development thinking was
based on premises about the world around us
– the prevalence of all sorts of poverty traps,
the ensuing dichotomy between rich and poor
countries, and the critical role of international aid
to address the problem – that, even in our time,
were increasingly being questioned. At present, it
is fair to say they are just out of date. So why are
development institutes still around, and why in
Belgium, for what precise purpose?
IOB has done well. But it is partly because it was
not eschewing such existential questions. So
please, keep on questioning yourselves.
Wishing IOB, and its staff, a bright future.
Robrecht Renard
The long path
to real North
South University
cooperation
When could we state that partnership between
North and South institutions and exchange
between the people that is the bloodline of
university cooperation is sustainable, mutually
beneficial and balanced? The question may
become less and less relevant as the boundaries
between North and South, or between rich and
poor, or between developed and less developed
change the whole time but even then the
question will arise on the terms and usefulness
of international exchange and partnership. The
question remains and is a complex one, and
maybe it helps to make a difference between the
experience you can have as exchange students,
which is a direct and personal experience and the
ties that institutions build between them on a
more or less institutional basis.
Almost half a century ago, the world opened up for
me through the scholarship I got from the Belgian
authorities to study at the Sorbonne in Paris in
international economic relations. But these years
(68-69) were quite turbulent and professors and
authority were severely criticized up to a point
where my academic learning curve was less
important than the discovery of the diversity of
the world by student representatives from all over
the world. After all these years I still have very
personal and regular contacts and exchange on
how we look and experience the world around
us. If we have not changed the world, as we were
certain to do, we at least try to understand it
better. This experience has been an important
drive in my belief that an institution like IOB was
worth fighting for, because exchange of people
from different horizons in the same position not